Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 20th, 2010, 01:43 PM #1
ezliving's Avatar
ezliving ezliving is offline
Besieger
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Undisclosed Secure Location
Posts: 4,533
ezliving ezliving is offline
Besieger
ezliving's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Undisclosed Secure Location
Posts: 4,533
Colorado Couple Challenge USPS Ban Of Firearms on Postal Property

Colorado Couple Challenge USPS Ban Of Firearms on Postal Property

http://www.postalreporternews.net/20...stal-property/
__________________


In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” DC v. Heller (2008.)
ezliving is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2010, 06:49 PM #2
krucam's Avatar
krucam krucam is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 8,183
krucam krucam is online now
Senior Member
krucam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 8,183
This one is one of 30 on my 2A case page.
30) Bonidy v. USPS (CO, Challenging US Post Office as Sensitive, Gun-Free Zone Area) National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) Added 10/6/10
Filed 10/4/2010. Colorado District Court. Case: 1:10-cv-02408-RPM
Internet Archive: http://ia700100.us.archive.org/13/it...68.docket.html Uploaded Docket 10/10/10
Justia Summary: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/col...v02408/122068/
On Deck:

The funny thing is that this isn't SAF or NRA or Mountain States Legal Foundation supporting this case...it is the Nat'l Association for Gun Rights (NAGR). If you're not familiar with NAGR, just think of those email alerts on Rep Bobby Rush's House Resolution 45 and the words Blair Holt...

More on this:
http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com...on-postal.html
__________________
Mark C.

Dallas/Ft Worth, TX

Post McDonald Second Amendment Cases/Links HERE
krucam is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2010, 11:00 PM #3
INMY01TA's Avatar
INMY01TA INMY01TA is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,003
INMY01TA INMY01TA is offline
Senior Member
INMY01TA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,003
They don't seem to have a problem with Postal Inspectors carrying on their property.
INMY01TA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 6th, 2010, 11:47 PM #4
jpr9954 jpr9954 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western North Carolina
Posts: 10
jpr9954 jpr9954 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western North Carolina
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by krucam View Post
This one is one of 30 on my 2A case page.
30) Bonidy v. USPS (CO, Challenging US Post Office as Sensitive, Gun-Free Zone Area) National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) Added 10/6/10
Filed 10/4/2010. Colorado District Court. Case: 1:10-cv-02408-RPM
Internet Archive: http://ia700100.us.archive.org/13/it...68.docket.html Uploaded Docket 10/10/10
Justia Summary: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/col...v02408/122068/
On Deck:

The funny thing is that this isn't SAF or NRA or Mountain States Legal Foundation supporting this case...it is the Nat'l Association for Gun Rights (NAGR). If you're not familiar with NAGR, just think of those email alerts on Rep Bobby Rush's House Resolution 45 and the words Blair Holt...

More on this:
http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com...on-postal.html
One quick correction - while the organizational plaintiff is NAGR - the case is being brought by the Mountain States Legal Foundation. The attorney of record is Jim Manley of MSLF.
jpr9954 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2010, 05:41 PM #5
krucam's Avatar
krucam krucam is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 8,183
krucam krucam is online now
Senior Member
krucam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 8,183
Last week amongst all the other events....

In Bonidy v US Postal Service (Lawful Carry in Federal Post Offices), the Defendants filed #6 a Motion to Dismiss on #5 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.

Docket is HERE.

Item 6 Defendants Motion to Dismiss is attached.

This one while tempting on the surface (Federal Property) will likely fail. From the MTD:
Quote:
Plaintiffs’ claim fails as a matter of law. The Supreme Court has specifically stated that “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” like the USPS regulation at issue here, are “presumptively lawful.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2816-17 (2008).

Relying on Heller, the Courts of Appeals, including the Tenth Circuit, have uniformly held that regulatory measures like the USPS regulation do not violate, or even implicate, the Second Amendment. See, e.g., United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1047 (10th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1686 (2010).

In fact, the Tenth Circuit has held that Heller “specifically foreclosed” a Second Amendment challenge to a similar regulatory measure, United States v. Nolan, 342 Fed. Appx. 368, 372 (10th Cir. 2009), and the Fifth Circuit recently relied on Heller in upholding the precise USPS regulation at issue here. United States v. Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874, 875-86 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1714 (2010) (concluding that postal property “falls under the ‘sensitive places’ exception recognized by Heller”).
Attached Images
File Type: pdf 6 - Bonidy Def MTD of Pltf Amended Complaint.pdf (125.8 KB, 78 views)
__________________
Mark C.

Dallas/Ft Worth, TX

Post McDonald Second Amendment Cases/Links HERE
krucam is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2011, 06:54 PM #6
krucam's Avatar
krucam krucam is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 8,183
krucam krucam is online now
Senior Member
krucam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 8,183
Plaintiffs filed their objection to the Defendant Motion to Dismiss on 1/13/2011.

http://ia700100.us.archive.org/13/it...22068.10.0.pdf

It's not a bad write up. Heavy on the self-defense being core to the right angle. They then take up GA's Nunn case to develop the "carry" aspect...USPS firearms ban does not fit within the “presumptively lawful” regulatory
measures identified in Heller...

We'll see, but I'm not hopeful in this one.
__________________
Mark C.

Dallas/Ft Worth, TX

Post McDonald Second Amendment Cases/Links HERE
krucam is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2011, 07:12 PM #7
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,384
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,384
I thought it was challenging the parking lot portion of the post office? How's the parking lot a sensitive place?
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2011, 07:14 PM #8
rob b's Avatar
rob b rob b is offline
c@r collecting
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: harford county clinging to my 17 hmr
Posts: 2,288
Images: 51
rob b rob b is offline
c@r collecting
rob b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: harford county clinging to my 17 hmr
Posts: 2,288
Images: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
I thought it was challenging the parking lot portion of the post office? How's the parking lot a sensitive place?


because the GOV says so now move along there is nothing to see here
rob b is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2011, 09:49 PM #9
krucam's Avatar
krucam krucam is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 8,183
krucam krucam is online now
Senior Member
krucam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 8,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
I thought it was challenging the parking lot portion of the post office? How's the parking lot a sensitive place?
Full Docket is here: http://ia700100.us.archive.org/13/it...68.docket.html

Quote:
From the complaint:
20. On July 22, 2010, the Bonidys, through counsel, contacted the USPS to inquire as to whether they would be subject to prosecution pursuant to 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) if they carried a firearm on USPS property or stored a firearm in their cars when they parked on USPS property when picking up their mail. Exh. 1.
21. On August 3, 2010, Senior Vice President and General Counsel Mary Anne Gibbons responded, on behalf of Postmaster General John Potter, to the Bonidys’ July 22, 2010, letter. Ms. Gibbons stated, “the regulations governing Conduct on Postal Property prevent the Bonidys from carrying firearms, openly or concealed, onto any real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service. . . . There are limited exceptions to this policy that would not apply here.” Exh. 2.
Prohibitions start from the parking lot.
__________________
Mark C.

Dallas/Ft Worth, TX

Post McDonald Second Amendment Cases/Links HERE
krucam is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2011, 06:20 PM #10
krucam's Avatar
krucam krucam is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 8,183
krucam krucam is online now
Senior Member
krucam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun...DFW, TX
Posts: 8,183
Defendants USPS just filed their response to the January Plaintiff Opposition to MTD.
Quote:
02/11/2011 11 REPLY to Response to 6[RECAP] MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by Defendants John Potter, Steve Ruehle, United States Postal Service. (Farby, Lesley) (Entered: 02/11/2011)
The Judge yesterday responded with:
Quote:
02/15/2011 12 Minute ORDER Setting Hearing on 6[RECAP] MOTION to Dismiss for 3/21/2011 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom A by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 2/15/2011. (rpmcd) (Entered: 02/15/2011)
The Defendant's filing 11 is attached. It will be on the Docket...some time...
Attached Images
File Type: pdf 11 - Reply in Support of Def MTD.pdf (94.9 KB, 79 views)
__________________
Mark C.

Dallas/Ft Worth, TX

Post McDonald Second Amendment Cases/Links HERE
krucam is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2019, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service